Liccardo Forgoes Spending Limit in San Jose Mayor’s Race Runoff

Sam Liccardo has been sparring with a new beat reporter. /Brian Kirksey

Sam Liccardo will not accept a voluntary expenditure limit for the San Jose mayoral runoff. The decision leaves little doubt that the 2014 mayor's race will end up being the most expensive in city history.

“We thought long and hard about the fundraising path and we decided not to take the voluntary limit, mostly because we’ll be facing the challenge of overcoming what we expect to be millions of contributions to our opponent through various special interests—card clubs, marijuana dispensaries and unions,” Henninger said.

“We have a lot of work to do. We’re taking our campaign to every neighborhood on a grassroots level and every contribution will be important.”

Last year, county Supervisor Cindy Chavez used the support of the DCC and SBLC to run a devastatingly efficient campaign in defeating Teresa Alvarado. Campaigns often receive assistance from independent expenditure committees, but these groups can also hurt their preferred candidate by not staying on message.

Had he accepted the voluntary cap, Liccardo’s camp would be restricted to spending $794,000 in this election cycle. His campaign accepted the cap in the primary, when Liccardo (25.75 percent; 33,521 votes) finished second to Cortese (33.72 percent; 43,887 votes), and is believed to have maxed out on that threshold.

Henninger said the Liccardo camp has not yet set a dollar amount it expects to reach this time around. “I think ballpark will be just over a million, but we’re still trying to figure out what’s reasonable,” she said.

The decision does not affect city contribution limits, which remain set at $1,100 per election cycle.

The latest campaign disclosure forms on file show Cortese’s personal campaign had spent almost $427,000 as of May 17. Liccardo's last filing shows his campaign had spent more than $602,000 as of May 17. Several hundred thousand dollars was spent by other primary challengers, most notably San Jose councilmembers Madison Nguyen, Pierluigi Oliverio and Rose Herrera.

The semi-annual filings for all candidates covering through June 30 will be available at the end of this month.

Silicon Valley’s partisan dynamics cut down the Democratic Party rather than the national Democrat-Republican split. Both Cortese and Liccardo will rely on institutional support, with Cortese taking more a labor-centric segment of the Democratic Party. Liccardo, who has endorsements from current Mayor Chuck Reed and the San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce, will lean on a more business-oriented portion of the party, in addition to courting conservative voters.

Cortese emailed the following statement, via political consultant Barry Barnes, of the firm Terris Barnes Walters, to San Jose Inside:

"Well over a million dollars was spent between Sam and the superPAC of conservative CEOs supporting him in the primary," Cortese said. "We’re surprised that he is trying to turn back decades of local campaign finance reform by refusing the spending cap. In my opinion, we need less money in politics, not more.”

Josh Koehn is a former managing editor for San Jose Inside and Metro Silicon Valley.

Filed Under:

149 Comments

So I guess Sam realizes that money will by him the Mayor’s office. Too bad his own platform or his history as a San Jose Councilman won’t. I guess when you’ve done all you can to destroy morale with City Employees who are fleeing City employment as rapidly as possible, you really can’t run on your own record. Money, money, money that’s what its all about , Sammy! I sure hope you lose big time! And after you lose, please register as a Republican, you are an insult to the Democratic Party!

So I am guessing you did not vote for President Obama in 2008 or 2012, because he did the SAME EXACT THING after promising not to in 2008. Also, if you are questioning Sam’s judgment and work ethic, what was your reaction to Cortese’s endorsement of Xavier Campos for re-election? Please enlighten us on your standard of ethics and whom someone endorses, and how it affects your vote.

Because as i said, Obama also did not abide by a spending limit. Did you vote for him or didnt you? You make this sound like abiding by spending limits is what qualifies as being a Democrat. In that case, is Obama a democrat?

Fearnowine, I was quite clear about my reasoning for supporting Liccardo (see below towards the end of the comment section)… the assumption that if you do not support Cortese you are a tea party republican is irresponsible and immature. This divide and conquer strategy is unnecessary….fearnowine, have you read the immaturity of Anthony’s arguments and accusations or are you simply ignoring them – because you think he is the joke? If you think his actions are immature – lets hear it. I want to see how rational you are.

lol @ SJC i don’t expect anyone to take me seriously pinhead, i am here simply to beat you about the head because i don’t like your kind…..which i’m almost positive goes for you as well…..you don’t like my kind lol

Time for change – we’ve seen a continual decline in the quality of life throughout much of San José as crime continues unabated and liccardo shows no sign of truly understanding how best to address public safety. The atmosphere between the city and its employees, the very situation created by reed, liccardo, oliverio, is so toxic that nothing more than a completely new direction – a fresh approach – will give this city and its citizens a chance to progress. There is one candidate that can bring that progress – Dave Cortese.

Fearnowine: San Jose already spends fifty percent more on policing than we did a dozen years ago. How will increasing the size of police pensions fix the crime problem? Won’t it just continue the city’s path to bankruptcy? Weren’t the police unions endorsing Cortese the ones who encouraged police officers to leave San Jose, even holding job fairs in their union halls for competing agencies?

PS- that is the most empty “issues” section I have seen on any political candidate’s website EVER. Meanwhile, Sam Liccardo literally wrote a book on the issues.http://www.samliccardo.com/a_detailed_plan
I’m not claiming that the candidate who puts out more policy information is necessarily better, but Cortese’s website says nothing about how he stands on important issues while Sam campaigns on a detailed plan.

community policing and broadening prosperity and opportunity in san jose…..empty rhetoric, lol and encouraging police to leave san jose…..nothing to do with measure b lol it’s the unions fault…..that’s the republican line of reasoning. the people are the union unlike the corporations are the people!!

Empty rhetoric? You clearly haven’t read any of it. It’s filled with the sort of concrete ideas that Cortese is completely devoid of. Just a few:
1. Use the savings from Measure B to hire more cops.
2. Reform the police academy system with a loan program, to be paid off by officers over a minimum term of four to five years. If the officer leaves before then, either the officer or her new employer will pay off the remainder. This will make sure that San Jose doesn’t get stuck with the cost of training officers for other cities.
3. Adopt predictive policing and data analytics software to predict the movement of crime more accurately and more effectively deploy officers.
4. Introduce officer-mounted cameras in order to save millions in fact-finding, keep officers on the street and out of court, and protect the civil rights of all SJ residents.

@carthagus lol how about trying – use the savings from measure B to pay the police for forced overtime lol all dumb ideas…..and the real issue? why can’t they keep the recruits after training lol what a joke!!

SJC (Sam council worker) Nope never voted for Obama who now wants to raise our budget another 4 billion. Worst ratings every as a president. And this is the worst city council ever. And Sam wants to eliminate public safety and have homeless clean his downtown streets. Are they making minimum rate, or just vouchers? They deserve a raise! Unlike city workers, if we had not laid off everyone we would have clean parks, streets and a safe city.

wow, SJout……………………since you never denied working for Sam I get it……….now you want to bring national political issues into being a mayor and deflect our city issues. Say hello to your boss. Unless you are Sam the candidate.

lol oh i forgot you are one of those pinheads who claim your tax pays for everything and everyone lol you don’t make that much money and you don’t pay that much tax pinhead but good try at trying to take the credit though lol Teabaggers hahaha

Hey Retired and Anthony, should I assume because you overtly advocate for voting for Dave at the end of your posts (something I dont do) that you work for Dave or are Dave himself? If so, tell him I say hello as well, unless he is testifying as a character witness for any of the corrupt politicians he has endorsed.

You are such a broken record I am saying goodbye to your posts. You just post the mirror opposite so there is no argument. Almost funny but not worth my time anymore. Can’t endorse any of the liars in Chucks camp. Wish you the best.

sorry RETIRED….my comments are not directed at you, i am just butting heads with SJC and OTBubble and all the others that are desperate to save this failed REED Regime…..Reed seems to me to be the Louie Gohmert of California.

The sense of contempt that you and other Cortese Camp show for the average union blue collar worker is disturbing….you have an elitist mentality, where ifi am not a wealthy union boss waxing poetic about Chuck Reed’s Vice Mayor (CORTESE) then you would consider me a member of his campaign…. there is a.reason why Cindy whooped Cortese in the first round in 2006 – Cortese is light on policy and has an inability to explain how he will pay for proposed initiatives and why he backs corrupt politicians for reelection like Xavier Campos. Aside from senior union leaders very few union people think highly of Cortese. Why did Cortese endorse Xavier and why do you think Cindy ran against Cortese in 2006… simple CORTESE ISNT LOOKING OUT FOR UNIONS, HE IS LOOKING OUT FOR HIMSELF.

the average blue collar union worker is the union dufus, you dips and your fixation on wealthy union boss slogans are laughable….you dummies claim that all of Corteses supporters are union workers and than claim no union workers live in san jose lol which is it dufus. your tries at head spinning must really leave you dips dizzy!!

Mr Koehn,
Just how long did you have to scour the photo database to find a picture of Saratoga Sam smiling with his mouth closed? This photo could generate a phone call from Ragan Hemminger herself as this is not the image Saratoga Sam wants to portray as evidenced by the endless open mouthed photos from each public event he attends.
It’s an uncanny quirk, that for most may appear coincidental, yet for the observant appears deliberate and maniacal. Or is this just what mouth breathers must do for photo ops?

that you commented was unexpected lol at least in your own name…..just giving you a hard time josh but i do think of you as an activist reporter with an agenda. that’s ok there are plenty out there on both sides of the spectrum…..

Although the comment was entirely non sequitur, the observation is noteworthy. Examine the following examples and tell me Sam does not go into a suspended guffaw the moment a camera is pointed his way.

Policy records is what Liccardo is going to try and run from…..Measure B back to the voters lol i still think that if they (Reed/Liccardo) try and take measure B mods to the voters a competing measure should also be made available to the voters – FULL REPEAL OF MEASURE B!!!!

Hardly there buddy, let’s stop the conjecture talk for a minute so I can throw out facts.

Fact: Campaign disclosure forms show that both candidates took in nearly equal amounts of money, but Sam outspent Dave. Excuse me for not knowing the proper poly sci term but, Dave spent less per vote. He spent less, he got more votes, period.

Fact Dave now has a larger, personal war chest. Sure, we can nitpick about who has labor/commerce support, but those orgs basically spend the same amounts. With a larger personal war chest, Dave is in a better position to drive it home.

So you dont want Dave to run for mayor, but instead enlist in the Army?…its hilarious how instead of answering complicated questions you simply repeat a slogan. Do you and other Cortese supporters just tell that to constituents when you go door to door? No wonder Cindy ran against you and whooped you in 2006 – you do labor a disservice by not laboring to provide meaningful info to voters

When has Liccardo ever broken the rules? The FPPC threw out that failed political candidate Steve Kline’s accusations of cheating because they recognized that they were based entirely on speculation. Are you just going to keep repeating the word “cheater” like that never happened? Your constant resort to character assassination betrays your unwillingness to debate actual issues. Behavior like yours and Steve Kline’s harms our democracy by distracting from things that really matter.

Ya like crime and murders in San Jose and a police force that is forced to work mandatory overtime while it’s city leaders go on vacation, ya that is really distracting from things that really matter…..the city leaders (leading into the toilet) vacation is what really matters.

its hard to be found”guilty” when your besties are the ones , who who make the rulings . Spin it any way you like , Liccardo already admitted ” Its what winners do ” . elitist attitude like yours makes it hard to even have conversation .

It really doesn’t matter what the FPPC ruled (to paraphrase Chuck Reed after the FPPC ruled he broke the law and fined him $1.00) – Sam’s Chief admitted the wrong doing (“That’s what winners do.. (break the rules)” and Sam said he gave back the money he collected illegally. .

Democrats cast a wide tent IN SPITE of people like you who claim that politicians like Liccardo and Reed are not Democrats. You are the leftwing equivalent of a Tea Partier, and we are lucky that most people in our party are not like you. If people like you insist that a politician needs to put the city billions of dollars in debt in order to fit the definition of a “true Democrat”, then the party is going to be destroyed.

hahahahaha lol your party lol now you’re a democrat too…..you dips must think we are stupid lol Jerry Brown now there is a true Democrat!! Got California back on track whereas the capital of Silicon Valley is missing the boat lol how can that be? Must be the incompetent leadership of a so called democrat led city council lol….the Capital of Silicon Valley failing to keep up with the states resurgence…nearly impossible, but apparently possible with the failed leadership of REED/LICCARDO!!!!

Cortese’s campaign isn’t going to be dictated by spending limits. The DCC is going to practically be a wing of his campaign, and they have no spending limits. That’s the truth- that there is a political machine in the South Bay which marches with Cortese and his political allies (Cindy Chavez, Xavier Campos, George Shirakawa, Ron Gonzales, etc.) and violates the spirit of California’s campaign finance laws. The fact that the Cortese campaign has the gall to act morally superior to Liccardo is staggering.

Are you saying there is no “political scene” backing Liccardo??? Liccardo also has the total backing of the Mercury, which picks and chooses what stories to run, to paint Liccardo in a flattering light, and Cortese in a poor light.

And…you won’t find a story such as “Liccardo Forgoes Spending Limit in San Jose Mayor’s Race Runoff” in the Mercury News because it will put Liccardo in a bad light with voters and take some of the shine off his teeth.

Thing is, the smart voters will see through all their BS. The more BS they put out there, the more turned off the smart voters will become. Just like the “plants” in this blog. People can see right through that and will be turned off by it.

Your theory depends on there being a preponderance of “smart” voters, SoSo, But is this in fact the case? Seems to me there are way more dumb voters than smart voters. That’s not entirely accurate nor is it fair. I’ll rephrase it. Seems to me there are way more voters who are willing to accept the opinion of the mass media over the evidence of their own eyes and ears.
And I think you and a few others on this site, many of them otherwise quite bright, are mistakenly regarding cynical comments about Cortese as evidence that the commenters are some sort of Liccardo “operatives”. A much needed wake up call as to just how uncomprehending liberals are of the conservative perspective.

There are a lot of dumb voters, but a majority of San Jose voters are rational. That’s why Reed beat Cindy Chavez by twenty points, Measure B passed by forty points, and mayoral candidates who supported Measure B beat the one anti-B candidate by twenty points.

Of course I’m not saying there’s no political scene backing Liccardo! Look how easily your warped mind puts words in my mouth. The political scene backing Liccardo doesn’t have access to UNLIMITED EXPENDITURES ON BEHALF OF THEIR CANDIDATE, however.

In addition to reading SJI as an alternative news source, also take a look at “The Daily Fetch”, covering local politics in San Jose. SJI and the Fetch are much more balanced in what they present, unlike the one sided Mercury, which obviously has a political agenda, which is plain to see in which articles it picks and chooses to run, or not run, and the editorials. Keep up the good work, SJI and every other alternative news source.

The Daily Fetch is one of the most biased hit-blogs on the website, operated by political consultants and totally incomparable to SJI. They are borderline woman-hating with their past attacks on an SJPD rape victim and their disgustingly vicious attacks on Councilwoman Rose Herrera.

kind of like internal affairs? and i don’t think they report…i believe they comment on local news pieces which is good because it will keep the Murky news on their toes. Bay Area News Group has pretty much gone backwards but at least they mirror the capital of silicon valley in it’s regression – bay area bedfellows!!

With the San Jose Mercury operating as Liccardo’s unofficial campaign headquarters (and what is the dollar value of that?), SJI is one of the few forums available for a genuine give-and-take of opinions and information about the candidates and issues, and as such, the site would not be expected to draw the ire of any candidate who values an informed electorate. Therefore, it follows that a candidate who dumps a box of cockroaches in the middle of such a forum, with the obvious intent to disrupt the exchange of information, either fears or resents an informed electorate.

Thus, the question: exactly what is it that Sam Liccardo fears or resents? Does he resent the exposure — in detail, of his pivotal role in dismantling the police department, the most foolhardy and disastrous policy decision in the history of the city? Does he fear the public questioning why, with the police department already in crisis mode and collapse looming, he refuses to abandon Chuck Reed’s führerbunker and restore the city manager’s authority to crisis manage? Or is what he resents the repetitious complaint that his mayoral campaign is funded by outside interests — wealthy, well-protected interests that will never see, feel, or suffer the effects of a dismantled and impotent police department?

Here’s what I say to your wonderfully cobbled missive – BRAVO! So well said that I wish I could share it with a wider audience. A vote for Liccardo is clearly a vote for a continuation of disastrous policies that have left this city in a precarious position. Not only have we witnessed an unprecedented erosion of public safety capabilities, but the adversarial approach to managing city workers by this candidate and other members of a profoundly dysfunctional city council have created an atmosphere of distrust so palpable that leaving city jobs for friendlier employment is now the norm. To watch Liccardo, Reed, Oliverio fiddle furiously while our city struggles with crumbling infrastructure and rising crime is not only infuriating, it is also a clarion call for change. That change is Dave Cortese.

A vote for Dave Cortese is a vote to bankrupt this city. Cortese only has the endorsements of public sector unions because he’s willing to sell out the city’s future to them while he shuts his eyes to San Jose’s ticking timebomb of unfunded liabilities. There’s a reason why young voters went for Liccardo overwhelmingly in the primary- because he’s the candidate on their side, looking forward to the future. Dave Cortese wants to pass the tab onto the next generation in the interest of political expediency.

“There’s a reason why young voters went for Liccardo overwhelmingly in the primary”

Overwhelmingly???? Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t Liccardo come in 2nd place and a not that close of a second. Additionally, didn’t the price for that 2nd place finish cost him over 1 million dollars or about $1,000 for every vote he received?

I was making a response to your comment. You need to educate yourself and see how much money was spent by Liccardo and the independent expenditure committees for him to come in second in the June primary. Let me quote from the Mercury News:

“With more than $1 million in direct contributions and independent expenditures supporting him, Liccardo enjoyed more financial support than Nguyen, Oliverio and Herrera combined, as he reeled in big bucks from local CEOs and business leaders. But there were concerns he was not focused enough for the job.”

Do you know what the difference is between revenues and expenditures, Michael? You said that his passage through the primary “cost him over 1 million dollars”, not that over one million dollars was donated to him.

@ Carhagus I thought that passage of Measure B ensured that we won’t be spending “all of our taxpayer dollars on pensions for retired officers instead of on active-duty police officers…” Nothing in the court ruling that invalidated parts of Measure B weakened it in any way that prevents Measure B from achieving its stated purpose “preserve jobs and protect services.”

The question of whether or not this site has been attacked by the blog virus known as cucaracha politicus is unlikely to be solved by hard evidence, thus we are left to make our assessments based only on content and behavior. In the case of OUTSIDETHEBUBBLE, the evidence (vapid, repetitive, disruptive replies) is so blatant that he or she’s been called out by a number of posters on several different occasions. As to O’Bubble’s connection to the Liccardo campaign, I believe the case can be made based on:

— the lack of interest demonstrated in adding substance to the dialogue. The vast majority of commenters come to SJI to share their perspective on either the post or the comments made. O’Bubble does neither: he only attacks, mocks, or sidetracks (in an obviously partisan direction), often using the liar’s lexicon common to paid political operatives.

— the refusal to engage when challenged. Dismantle O’Bubble’s comments and you get no real reaction; no evidence that he believes or can support what he posted; no sign of ego, anger, or anything else human (and few things are less human than political operatives).

— the effect of his efforts. O’Bubble targets the facts, interpretations, and opinions that favor Cortese and is mildly effective at derailing any discussion that threatens to reveal the true extent of the damage done by Liccardo the councilman, or the real source of Liccardo the mayoral candidate’s political support (the very same topics Sam Liccardo and the Mercury News have consistently dodged).

— the absence from this site any participation from Liccardo’s camp. I don’t know the extent of SJI’s influence, but when a candidate eschews a free venue where, for an investment of a few minutes, he (or a campaign worker) can publicly make his case or defend his reputation, I’m inclined to think that a strategy other than official participation has been employed for that venue.

I think O’Bubble is a representative of that strategy; were he a genuine, unpaid partisan, he would be incapable of commenting so often without revealing something significant about his motivating issues, ideology, or passions.

“when a candidate eschews a free venue where, for an investment of a few minutes, he (or a campaign worker) can publicly make his case or defend his reputation, I’m inclined to think that a strategy other than official participation has been employed for that venue.”

That sounds pretty petty and unlikely to me, but by that logic, doesn’t that mean that Cortese has sent people to this blog? Are you such a person? I’m starting to think that your need to psychologically rationalize differences of opinion as owing to someone else’s direct relationship to Liccardo might be a form of projection. Do you have a relationship with Mr. Cortese?

> I think O’Bubble is a representative of that strategy; were he a genuine, unpaid partisan, he would be incapable of commenting so often without revealing something significant about his motivating issues, ideology, or passions.

This is one of the weirdest criticisms I have endured.

If I raise an issue that people care about and that candidates refuse to address — ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION — I am accused of “sidetracking the debate”..

If I don’t raise an issue, I’m accused of not “revealing something significant about his motivating issues, ideology, or passions”.

So far, the mayoral campaign has been ridiculous and absurd for it’s absence of content and overabundance of empty slogans:

“Vote for Dave”. Why?

Candidate A has ONE ISSUE: Give the police union the big bucks they want and feel entitled to. To hell with everyone and everything else.

Candidate B has no issues, except for a big, toothy grin.

Illegal immigration? Sanctuary city!?e-Verify for city employees? Dumping if illegal alien children on San Jose by the federal government? Creation of “low income housing” to house the illegal alien children dumped on San Jose by the dishonest, uncaring, and inept federal government?

Oh, well, those are not LOCAL issues.

Duh?!

Democracy is government by the stupidest, most ignorant, and most venal fifty-one percent of the people. And the San Jose Mayoral election proves it.

Sammy hates public safety in general and couldn’t care less about city employees. He was never willing to come to the table and work on the issues. He is an arrogant SOB just like Chuck. His goal is to be a mayor and move on in politics, not giving a dam about SJ. He got his bike lanes which screwed up SJ streets. Lets ask Sammy when was the last time he took out his bike for these lanes when he gets a free city car and gas and parking at city hall.

Vote Dave for mayor and make a change. No change and we will be the next Oakland, Chicago, etc. Maybe Obama can give SJ 4 billion to fix our mess. Better yet vote out the majority of Chuck’s council.

When are you guys going to give up on the bogus idea that a government monopoly and a union monopoly haggling over money is a “negotiation”? It ain’t.

It’s a hostage situation.

One side says MORE and one side says LESS. And the discussion degenerates into who is going to inflict more damage and pain until one side capitulates.

This is not civilization. It’s warfare.

There is NO QUESTION that San Jose WILL have a police force.

There is NO QUESTION that San Jose will have police protection that is acceptable to politicians and voters.

The only question is: “Who will be on the police force”.

The police union is arguing for a complete cult of personality: “IT HAS TO BE US, OR ELSE”.

Nonsense. There is no INDISPENSIBLE employee. The San Jose police union can pick up their marbles and go away. San Jose can just go to the free agent market.

Just like the Sharks. Just like the 49ers. The world is not about to run out of goalies or quarterbacks or police officers.

For the benefit of the dumbbells out there, this is NOT an argument to vote for a buck tooth trial lawyer with no issues. This IS only an argument to recognize that Cortese’s single issue is bogus. We will have cops and police protection NO MATTER WHO IS ELECTED. It just may not be Cortese’s favorite cops.

a plan that no one has or is going to read lol ya go to my website lol how about presenting that plan to a wider audience by mouth and not by a directive to go to my website and while you’re their…….lol

hey inside the bubble the police force are the union dufus and ya you dips ARE telling them to pickup their marbles and go away and apparently they are lol what’s a few murders and other crimes to us anyways as long as it’s not you or me lol.

Ah. Anthony’s here. Splendid.
Finfan, there’s someone you should meet. I’d like to introduce you to Anthony. Anthony here and likeminded millenials will henceforth be leading the political party that will, among other things be representing the interests of public employees. The Party, under the direction of, and guided by the values of young Anthony here and his important demographic group, will also be working hard to legalize pot, punish those who discriminate against gays, expand public assistance programs, sic the IRS on conservative groups, collect reparations for African-Americans, and grant citizenship to anyone in the world who wants it.
Public safety professionals and retirees need not worry and can rest easy that they’ll be well taken care of even as the country spirals down the toilet.

The only demographic being led down the toilet is the middle aged angry white republican who are blaming every other demographic for the countries ills lol typical of them…..want to take all the credit and none of the blame….typical taebaggers!!!

@SJC good try at spin dufus….race card/income card lol the games that teabaggers play….why do you dufuses want to impeach President Obama dufus? because he’s DIFFERENT lol DOG WHISTLE LOL ya you guys are good……at division lol and then try and spin it….good try at tricks silly rabbit!!

Why do you assume people who vote for Obama should vote for Cortese. I am an extremely proud registered DEMOCRAT and I am supporting Sam Liccardo for mayor. That is the issue with some (not all) Cortese supporters, especially Anthony……if you are not a Cortese Supporter, you are a racist, bigoted Tea Partier……..this divide and conquer strategy by Cortese supporters, who are over the moon in support of Xavier Campos and Dave’s endorsement of him – is hypocrisy and accusing any Liccardo supporter of being a republican tea partier is divide and conquer strategy at its worst.

@ SJC and another thing, i don’t speak for everyone else dufus….i speak for only myself dip wad but good try at lumping everyone in with me lol i’m just here to poke you dip wads in the eyes and you all engage me like good little dogs…..good boy!!!

Regardless of how services are delivered to the city and the means of arriving at labor contracts, the fact remains that labor unions (representing most of SJ’s employees) and collective bargaining groups (SJPOA and Local 230, which cannot strike and are therefore not ‘unions’) are an aggregate of individuals. So, yes, while collective bargaining does occur and, at times, while labor conditions can be imposed by SJ’s elected leadership, there is a competitive market for the individuals who perform those services. While a labor organization cannot just pick up and transfer its services to another employer/government organization, the individuals certainly can.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the Police Department where, literally, hundreds of individual officers have left San Jose’s employ and gone on to far greener pastures than those at San Jose. Simply by making a lateral transfer to any other agency in the county will result in a minimum net income increase of $10k annually, and as much as over $30k at some other agencies. This pattern is repeated in many other county and municipal law enforcement agencies throughout the greater bay area and as far away as Oregon and Washington and Texas where substantially reduced costs of living permit a much higher standard of living than is currently enjoyed by many SJPD officers, despite that they make have taken a gross pay cut to transfer to these other agencies.

It’s important to keep in mind that INDIVIDUALS, not bargaining groups participate in this highly competitive free market and that if the bargaining groups are unable to achieve a competitive wage benefit package, it is the INDIVIDUALS who will leave, rather than the ‘bargaining entity’. And it it is for precisely this reason that that so many INDIVIDUAL OFFICERS have sought – and gained – far better employment at other agencies.

The circumstantial evidence indicates that public employees have an institutionalized edge over their private sector counterparts.
I was speaking with a CSJ retiree recently who confided in me that she had “put in her time” (as a librarian) and now gets a $4,000 per month pension. How many Barnes and Noble clerks are so richly rewarded?
Every morning I walk my dog at a park that is adjacent to a housing development in which the common areas are maintained by a private company. The gardeners at the HOA are probably making minimum wage while across the street at the Park the City guy is making twice as much and working half as hard.
What’s going on here? Why such a disparity between public and private workers who have essentially similar jobs? The difference? The landscape company has to compete with other landscape companies. Barnes and Noble has to compete with Amazon. In order to be competitive and remain in the game, both these private enterprise are motivated to keep their costs down and that includes labor costs. You’ll notice that gardeners and bookstore workers are not fleeing San Jose for other cities where the bookstores and landscape maintenance companies pay more. Why not? Because those companies have competition in other cities too.
If there was only one bookstore in every city and the people of that city were required to buy their books at that store then they’d have to pay the employees whatever they demanded, but hey no big deal, they’d just raise the price of books enough to cover the costs. Now, under this monopolist system, if the San Jose Barnes and Noble decided that they were going to offer lower wages to their employees then sure, these INDIVIDUALS could do better elsewhere and the San Jose B&N would have a hard time staffing the store. But that doesn’t happen in a free market. The fact that it IS happening with SJPD is evidence that public employment is NOT comparable to private.
The point is, public employee compensation is not governed by the free market. Yet we continue to pretend that it is. The very nature of the structure of government makes it impossible for market forces to regulate. This is something we used to understand but seem to have forgotten over the last several decades. I might not mind San Jose paying certain occupations, such as police officer, a very generous wage. But until there’s intellectual honesty and an acknowledgment that government labor markets are fundamentally different then I’ll continue to perceive any “negotiation” as institutionalized extortion.
The real problem is that this attitude that governments are geese that lay golden eggs doesn’t remain confined to legitimate government functions such as police work. It trickles away and affects what government does in scores of ways that are wasteful and counterproductive.

Carthagus — This blog is thick with Cortese people, all sent here by none other than Sam Liccardo, who, through his ignorance, arrogance, and misfeasance, has been a boon to the Cortese campaign. As for me, the Herculean task of turning me into a Cortese supporter (something I never imagined) proved no problem for Reed, Liccardo, and company.

O’Bubble — Yes, we’ll get right to that subject of the mayor’s role in illegal immigration after we decide on a Mexican Heritage Plaza, a Grand Prix, and a bronze turd for Market and San Carlos. Quit trying to fool us into stepping into your machine and sending us back in time to confront some local stupidity we can’t blame on Sam Liccardo.

I am not trying to be a pest and I dont pretend to understand the many issues involved here at the same level other posters do. I am a bit ashamed concerning that, I work three jobs and basically live hand to mouth so I dont have time to really research these issues. I wish I did. I have watched all of the council meetings from 2009-2014 and I have found them wanting. At times it appears that decisions have already been made way before public comment. I may well be wrong but that is what i have found. I am totally willing to admit I am wrong, I want to do the right thing by my neighbors and by the people that protect us, I E the firefighters and police. I think they got screwed with measure B which I voted against.

I am being totally honest here, naive and maybe mistaken but I found Mr. Liccardo very compelling when I saw him speak, I saw Mr Cortese speak and I found him compelling as well but the hair on the back of my neck raised up with both candidates. the Mercury news is not very helpful in dealing with local politics and Mayor Reed is well, Mayor Reed.My religious convictions prevent me from judging another person’s heart / soul but I found his service to this city wanting. Our city is being overdeveloped and our city workers IE the police and fire fighters are being disparaged. I agree to the need for reform concerning retirement, but measure B was ill conceived in my opinion. I buried most of my family in San Jose, if nature is true to course I to will die here though I hope to not, I dont like this city any more but I have to live here.

If anyone has any clear posts / facts as to where these people lied it would be helpful to post them, I am sorry I dont have the time to dig them up so any help you can provide I would appreciate it. thanks.

I appreciate your thoughtful questions and your interest in civic engagement and wanting to get a better handle of all of these issues. Full disclosure:I am voting for Liccardo – not because he is the perfect candidate – he is far from that – but because the opposition is both hypocritical and supports unethical law breaking public officials. I started this election wanting to vote against Cortese but have evolved to voting for Liccardo.

Also, people may say I am anti-Labor, however I worked for and voted for Cindy Chavez. To suppirt Cortese simply because the labor union bosses do is not a good reason. The reason why Cindy ran against Dave in 2006 (and beat him convincingly for second runoff spot) is while union bosses / fat cats supported Cortese, the actual workers in lower wage jobs supported Cindy – and yes I am a proud union member!

Why I am Voting Against Cortese:

He endorsed Xavier Campos failed re-election bid, after Campos pled the Fifth regarding ethics charges on himself and his ally George Shirikawa – others may go into more specifics if you would like more details. Cortese has never explained why he endorsed him.

He claims to be an outsider, but served as Chuck Reed’s Vice Mayor…and Chuck endorsed him for County Supervisor! So for Cortese to claim to be against all of Mayor Chuckles policies is ridiculous. His focus is political expediency.

Cortese’s policy ideas are very high level without any clear explanation on how he will pay for them. Check his website (both for that matter) for more detail.

In Cortese defense he would be ostracized by Labor Unions if he tries negotiating with opposition – he has conceded as much.

Main reason why I am voting for Liccardo

He has a set of policy ideas, some I agree with, some I do not…but these policies he explains in detail how he would pay for them in a large booklet (40 pages?). Clearly he has put a lot of thought into this. Booklet can be found on his website – http://www.samliccardo.com.

Liccardo has diverse support. For example, Mayor Susan Hammer supported Cindy Chavez in 2006 and is supporting Sam in 2014. Sam has more union support than Cortese has non union support and I think its because Sam is in a better position to compromise vs. Gridlock.

Although Liccardo is not the Labor Union Boss’ candidate he has expressed an interest in talking with the unions and reaching compromises. Being open to negotiating with opposition is important. Liccardo needed to acknowledge faults with Measure B and he has and these are areas that as mayor he is best positioned to compromise with opposition on. Dave is in zero position to compromise and reach a happy medium. If he does, he will have ‘turned his back on labor’.

In conclusion, I have met both guys and both are decent public servants and genuinely good people. Where Cortese’s cousin may be obsessed with Liccardo’s smile (seriously?) it is policy ideas and ability to compromise that will move this city forward. In my opinion, Liccardo has it and Cortese does not – but again, I encourage you to visit both websites and watch what I hope will be televised debates. It will be a close election between two good guys.

So SJC, I read most of what you had to say. Much like you not being able to get past the Xavier issue, I can’t get past the issue that Liccardo is:

-Endorsed by Mayor Reed,
-Endorsed by nearly all the construction tycoons and large real estate firms. (The same people that endorsed the ill-conceived Measure B. The same people that made millions from the defunct SJRDA which is billions in debt (far worse then a pension issue))
-Sam himself endorsed and continues to endorse Measure B.
-Sam appears unwilling to compromise with employees.
-Supports gifting stadium land to big developers.
-The City is far worse under his council leadership (than in prior years).
-Although his district has seen growth in construction downtown it is still unsafe and unattractive.
-The Airport looks nice but way over priced.

Sounds like we agree to disagree and itll be a close election. Hopefully there is a televised debate so undecided voters have an opportunity to hear the candidates out and have them possibly question each other. This is a city of over a million people – there should be a few forums and debates – im sure there are a lot of questions voters have for both candidates.

Carthagus…you are a moron. Have you heard of the internet, you fool? That is how officers find out about opening in other police departments, as well as the vast network amongst officers. Get off your couch, you slug, and try doing the job of an officer for a day. Reed and Liccardo are who destroyed public safety in this city, you dope.

If going through all of the work of organizing a job fest for competing city police departments had nothing to do with encouraging officers to leave San Jose, why did Unland do it? It certainly wasn’t a PR stunt, I’ll tell you that, because it looks as ugly as it is.

measure B had nothing to do with it lol again it’s always the takers who are to blame lol hey carthagus how was that home mortgage deduction you TOOK this year taker lol subsidized housing lol and you pinheads blame everything on the poor, talk about dividers lol oh i forgot you’re not a teabagger you’re a democrat mr multiple handles

You left out that the majority of his money is coming from out of state . also that Liccardos plan to hire more Public safety is absolutely impossible to work . both Reed and Liccardo said Measure B would allow them to hire more , but fail to admit that “the best qualified candidates “are refusing to apply , or remain in the employment of San Jose. His promise to hire 200 more falls way short , when another 186 are leaving within the next year. as you can see public safety is going down , not up . Crime rate is climbing for all crimes especially violent crimes . Reed and Liccardo like blame the cites problems on the 265 Million dollar pension debt ( * pension debt amounts to less than 10% of San Joses total Budget) , but never mention the 4 Billion dollar RDA debt or the % Billion Dollar airport debt , Both of which Reed was instrumental is compiling.

The majority of his money is from out of state? Highly unlikely. Cite your source.

Liccardo’s 200 police officer plan was approved by the council in a 10-1 vote, including with votes from labor-backed Councilmembers who support Cortese. That’s because it was a good idea- it identified a total of $35 million in savings to put towards hiring those new cops and restores pay cuts which officers were forced to take due to the fiscal crisis which previous labor-backed Councilmembers like Dave Cortese put us in. Meanwhile, the police union is holding job fairs for competing agencies in their union hall to try to drive more officers out of the City- the same police union backing Cortese.

Carthagus….keep telling yourself that bullsh*t lie. Our police department is dying thanks to Liccardo. His plan to hire 200 officers is political bullsh*t to get elected. Our department is on life support, you fool. Officers are leaving here on a daily basis. The “hiring fairs” have little to do with officers leaving. Our officers are sought after commodities; departments seek them through networking, just like everyone else in Silicon Valley. Fools like you think our department is in some bubble. Wake up!!!!!! This is officers going where they are appreciated and paid for their talents, and are able to most importantly care for their families. They are tired of being lied to by the likes of Reed and Liccardo. $35 million savings that you quote is a drop in the bucket compared to the LEGAL compromise plan suggested by the police and fire department. Your beloved Mayor and LIccardo gave them the finger. Drive more officers out of the city by the San Jose Police Officers Association???? You are a fricking idiot if you really believe this.

Furthernore, the hiring events are a classless and pathetic move by police unions who fail to acknowledge the overwhelming vote by the majority of Dave’s supporters on the City Council. It is the unions that are trying to divide this city’s police force to hide Cortese mistakes (although Cortese’s individual allies have kept SJPD busy in their own special way).

@Carthagus & @Disgusted (SJI’s format doesn’t allow “replies” to specific posts – to think we live in the Tech innovation center of the universe…)

“…most…out of state…” is an overstatement however, a review of the most recent FPPC-460 I could find (which happens to be linked to an SJI article: http://www.sanjoseinside.com/images/uploads/liccardo_december.pdf ) shows that the non-state of DC has donors as do the states of: OH, PA, RI, MO, VA, LA, MN, OR, GA, NC, MI, HI, MD, CT, NY, TX, MA, CO, IL, FL , and NV (which now means I won’t ever knowingly buy another Gordon Biersch product).

I found another website (http://codeforsanjose.com/opendsj/) that claimed that 55% of Sam’s contributions come from outside SJ – it has Cortese accepting 48% from outside SJ.

The Job FAIR (not fairS) the POA (if my memory is correct) held came shortly AFTER the POA voluntarily voted to accept a ONE-YEAR 10% salary reduction (with a SECOND year being left to negotiation which the POA AGAIN accepted and which the City unilaterally extended to nearly 4 years) when the City announced and followed through with laying off 66 police officers. The Fair was meant to help those laid off find jobs elsewhere but was skewed by the media into something that it wasn’t.

SJC,
Again I say it, this is about failed leadership. How is it okay to promote a failed measure (Measure B) knowing full well that employees will leave and then Liccardo and Reed come back a few years later and tout that they have a plan? Oh sorry it is a “strategy”. This “Police Staffing Restoration Strategy” is crap….CRAP! Any thing to get elected politics.

First off, it says the “Strategy” is to increase the police force to 1,250 officers which is a net increase of 200 officers. Well since that letter was drafted it is now 300 officers to get to that goal. That equals approximately $48 million in training costs and more than $16 million in over time costs. This is just the police. What is happening else where in the City?

Secondly, a 10% raise of four years is not enough to keep the officers in San Jose. They can make more else where. Especially given the fact the City took away the 10% a few years back. This is merely a restoration of lost wages. This will not “stem the flow of departures”.

Anon, this failed leadership you speak… does it include Chuck’s former Vice Mayor Cortese, or have all of his decisions been flawless and in the best interests of San Jose? Remember, this is a person who endorsed Xavier Campos for re-election, so are you absolving St. Dave of Bellarmine of all responsibility for San Jose being in the current state that it is in?

With plans to hire more police and explaining a detailed way of paying for it – if you look at both Sam and Dave’s websites, Sam’s plans are detailed where by comparison…Dave’s are considerably less specific. Dave is more into sloganeering, Sam seems more interested in actual governing and making the difficult decisions necessary for long term growth, not short term political expediency.

This is in reply to Carthagus’ comment below regarding Liccardo’s plan to hire more officers:

Having a plan and implementing said plan are two entirely different issues. It is well and good to have a plan to hire more police officers, but he can’t conscript enough candidates to make that happen and the city sure isn’t able to hire enough to fill the 60-position academies it’s trying to hold much less retain the new recruits and seasoned officers. The reality is that simply earmarking money for hiring is insufficient. The city council has created a work environment that is hostile to public employees and to public safety in particular which, when coupled with the Sword of Damocles that is Measure B eliminates any opportunity for Liccardo to implement any kind of a plan at all.

Furthermore, after all the lies and deception in which Liccardo has engaged with respect to the nature of the budget problems San Jose faces and his own complicity in all of it (billion dollar city hall, 2 billion airport expansion, hundreds of millions squandered on money pits like Hayes Mansion, etc), and his complicity in the deceptive campaign which got Measure B on the ballot and passed into law, Liccardo will never enjoy the trust of city employees in any bargaining group. In fact, if you were to take an informal poll, you’d probably find that most – if not all – city employees see Liccardo as being as corrupt as the day is long and that will never change. And, this means that, if he is elected, there will always be an adversarial environment between leadership and employee groups which has no chance in hell of being repaired.

You claim that Liccardo is corrupt, however which mayoral candidate endorsed Xavier Campos’ reelection bid this year??? DAVE CORTESE. Who you endorse says a lot about you and he stood by Xavier Campos whom you might have encountered on your beat at one time or another.

Officer, when has Liccardo exhibited “corruption”? Cortese is the one who has stood with the most infamously corrupt politicians of the South Bay (Xavier Campos, George Shirakawa), and has been working closely throughout this election with the political mailer company Pacific Printing, currently UNDER INVESTIGATION BY THE FBI. Meanwhile, his financial backers consist of incompetent emergency service providers who suspiciously managed to to find county contracts under his watch (Look up Rural/Metro if you have not heard of this, before) and card clubs which have been lying their way out of paying their taxes to the City.

The term, “teabagger”, as commonly applied by liberals, demonstrates a very real yet usually well concealed prejudice against homosexuals as well as a hatred of white conservatives. Moreover, it shows total contempt for the principles upon which the country was founded. Transport young Anthony 241 years back in time and he and his “progressive” brethren, desperate to preserve the status quo, would be first in line to hurl hateful, bigoted epithets at “teabaggers” such as Samuel Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Patrick Henry.

Suddenly my comment appears quite a non sequitur.
Wasn’t there a comment from sanoseoutsidethebubble immediately above it and to which it pertained?
Has sanjoseoutsidethebubble been yanked from the etherwaves the same way that Mike Honda wants Bob Beckel yanked from the airwaves?
Is this what Eric Holder’s “conversation about race” would look like? A conversation *until* the liberal side doesn’t like what the other side says? And with the media squarely in the liberal camp and empowered to literally disappear the thoughts and ideas of those with differing political philosophies.
That’s quite a weapon you’ve got there SJI- the power of censorship. We can only hope that you understand that and wield it responsibly. Generally you guys tend to let people speak their minds and I appreciate that. Just a little concerned in this instance what comment policy transgression you believe SJOTB committed? In a normal world, with real paper, we could review what he wrote and have a discussion about it. But in this brave NEW world, SJI, you snuck into my house and stole my paper. You snuck into everybody’s houses. Now we don’t really know exactly what SJOTB said. You burned the book. Is this sort of careful control of information considered journalism these days? No wonder I’m cynical.

let me guess…..you’re one of those brilliants with multiple handles lol these blog boards are considered by yourselves (multiple handles) to be your own personal playground lol what happened someone get censored hahaha mr cynical lol like anybody cares lol

The name calling is unnecessary Anthony. When you post legitimate issues or objections – I may not agree with you, but I respect your right to debate…. but namecalling is pretty childish. Even though you are speaking for yourself – no need to be a jerk about it. I am sorry if Liccardo supporters are making you get worked up over facts…but it seems as you dont have any facts of your own you use insults as placeholders for substantive responses you used to be able to come up with, that you currently no longer have the capacity.

ya i’m a jerk but hey i meant it for you not to like it….hence the term “and i hope you don’t like it”. so what….i read blog posts all day with scathing comments so hey i decided long ago to engage in the insult fest…..and than people like you all of a sudden want to play nice, good luck with that.

Sure the Council voted 10-1 to approve Liccardo’s so-called “plan to hire 200 police officers.” Have you read the memo that was accepted as a result of that vote?

The only thing it did can be found in the “Recommendation” section. Forget hiring 200 – what part of that “recommendation” achieves hiring of a SINGLE officer? (I included a link to the memo for you to examine before getting back to us with the details…)

One other minor detail… This always referred to a “Sam’s Plan,” yet Mayor Reed gets top billing on the memo and in several news reports on the “plan.”

What part of the recommendation achieves the hiring of a single officer? There are two recommendations, the first being that the City adopts a strategy for restoring the police department and the second being that the City commit to allocating new funds for hires and restoring pay cuts. I am very perplexed at why you are convinced that this is a political stunt. I hate to start a war of memos, but if you want to explain why the strategy is bogus, it might be more helpful to refer to the Policing Staffing Restoration Policy itself.https://sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/31328

Strategies and plans are all well and good but at the end of the day they aren’t worth the paper they are written on or the server space they occupy. The Reed/Liccardo plan directs the City Manager to implement a plan to hire x # of officers then identifies EXISTING money in City accounts to pay training , salary and benefits should a hiring(s) take place. The Police memo restates the same thing but points out the fact that while more applications are being received fewer qualified candidates are being hired.

The question that has to be answered is “WHY?” Why isn’t/aren’t these plans to save SJPD working? Why are officers continuing to leave SJPD for other departments? Why are so few qualified applicants ACCEPTING job offers? Answer: quailified officers already working for SJPD and recruits wanting a career in law enforcement understand that EVEN with the 10% restoration of pay they can make more (20-30% MORE) working for many Cities not named San Jose.

Salary and benefits aside, SJPD has always paid less ALWAYS PAID LESS!!! but, was still able to attract motivated qualified police and other employees – what changed? The animosity that that this City’s “leadership” has created between the public and City Employees (real or perceived) has destroyed a relationship that had employees willing to work here for less than they could earn elsewhere. Its common sense. Why work here and be treated poorly by your employer(s) when you could get paid far more somewhere else – even if somewhere else treats you bad!

Why is this a stunt? Remember that Reed/Liccardo specifically said the 10% salary reduction needed to be restored and in a fashion it ultimately was. Also remember that even after Reed/Liccardo SAID that 10% needed to be restored the first offer from Reed and the Council which they demanded be put to a union vote was an insulting 3%. After the offer was rejected 954 to 3 they came back with the scheme that approximates but falls short of a full 10% implemented over several years. Once the “10%” is fully restored (july 2015 I think) police officers will still be making LESS than they were in 2009. I think that alone qualifies the memo as a stunt.

Well said, Meyer. Folks like Carthagus don’t like facts and reality though. They don’t like looking at the fact that out of 50 recruits hired a year ago under Measure B, only 13 still remain with the department. Yes, those same 50 who were part of this “restoration” program. Carthagus can’t stomach the fact our department is on life support, with a staffing level unprecedented in any large city, and this exodus started under the Liccardo/Reed administration. Sam wrote a manifesto, which anybody could do, which contains little substance and lots of fluff. To blame the union is smoke and mirrors, meant to anger simpletons like Carthagus, and divert attention away from the billions the RDA is in debt, largely to Liccardo’s downtown district. Officers have left, and will continue to flee, and it has nothing to do with a job fair. The job fair is an attempt to educate the public that officers are leaving, since city hall and their mouthpiece, the Mercury, will never tell you this, or the severity of the problem. The internet has made a job fair obsolete, and within a few minutes I could find 10 surrounding department that offer 25% more in pay, are appreciated by the citizens, and above all have a safety net in place that if an officer gets hurt or maimed, they and their family will be taken care of.

“Salary and benefits aside, SJPD has always paid less ALWAYS PAID LESS!!! but, was still able to attract motivated qualified police and other employees – what changed?”

What change you say? Pathetic SAN JOSE police union hacks including Unland creating the animosity you speak of, by taking advantage of SJPD – San Jose’s finest – to create an election issue and tilt support towards his preferred candidate, Cortese. Not EVERYONE takes a job because of the pay, but if you are dangle a carrot in front of someone long enough and create ‘this world is ending’ dire situation, you will get a few bites – but at what cost?

Also, when you speak of city leadership are you including Cortese in with everyone else? He was Chuck’s vice mayor and on the board for a substantial amount of time and is muddying the waters as the County Supervisor. If you point blame at the council making decision that got our city into this fiscal situation, do you think this all of a sudden happened when Cortese left the city council? Explain how St. David of Bellarmine and his political opportunism is not to blame at all for this city being in its current situation.

SCJ,
Are you saying that Sgt Unland has actually fabricated these issues between this current city council and SJPD officers just for political gain? Are you saying that the mayor’s and city council’s actions alone towards the police officers wasn’t enough to create this distrust and animosity all on it’s own? And yes, this staffing situation is way past the point of being simply dire.

Mayor Reed came to all SJPD briefings to tell officers that they had been on “the gravy train” for too long. Had IBM do an efficiency audit of City Departments that concluded most were over staffed including the Police Department which the study recommended should be pared down to around 500 TOTAL employees (provided the City fork over a hefty sum to IBM for some “workplace efficiency software”

Councilman Liccardo said the easiest solution to the “pension problem” would be to simply “fire everyone on Friday and hire them back on Monday with whatever pension plan the City wanted.”

Councilmember Oliverio took it upon himself to “clean up litter” that was cleverly disguised as professionally made campaign signs that opposed a ballot measure he supported.

Councilmember Khamis claims that the police and fire union board members are racist and refuses to meet with them unless they make a contribution equal to the amount the unions spent on a mailer that did not endorse him to an “organization that opposes racism.” A $7300 extortion demand?

Councilmember Herrera’s husband is caught illegally dumping “trash” in a garbage can in a City Park – trash that was cleverly disguised as campaign signs for his wife’s council seat opponent who just happened to be endorsed by the Police and Fire unions.

Councilmember Constant filed frivolous internal affairs complaints alleging police department employees made negative comments in social media about him and were engaged in illegal politicking against campaigns he supported and then alleged to the media that the police were illegally “spying on him” after the police department asked if his official public appearances required a police security after making multiple requests for and receiving the uniformed police security details to accompany him on campaign precinct walks during both his council campaigns. Constant rails against the very disability pension he benefits from and against sick leave the sick leave policy while he calls in “sick” to his job as a councilmember then has to have that time changes to vacation after he is caught across country attending a political convention!!!

Former City Manager Figone opposed the sick leave policy for employees and sick leave buyout even after she was able to have more than 800 hours of leave that she lost upon leaving City employment for jobs with other Cities reinstated with the right for her to sell that leave back to the City at her CM salary!!! CM Figone disagreed with the IBM staffing study only in that she thought that 500 officer might be too low – she believed that she “could police San Jose with 700 officers…”

These are just a few of the things that “City Leaders” did to generate the animosity that exists between the City and its employees – things that most of the public knows nothing about for a variety of reasons.

We aren’t talking about “dangling carrots” we are talking about compensation – the notion that it is more noble to do any job for less also implies that a San Jose police officer /fire fighter / City employee in any other department should have to accept a lower standard of living than their peers working for other Cities or a lower standard of living than anyone sitting behind a desk in the private sector is absurd.

“I apologize.” That’s what San Jose’s chief of police said Friday after the NBC Bay Area Investigative Unit exposed the department playing a numbers game with crime statistics, misleading the public about a decline in gang-related homicides.

Lol how do those memos work out, trying to please management, Number Games lol